> You should reread the description, experiment a little, and take some time to respond.

I'm not even sure what you want to accomplish with this issue. You
provide some code that you think should behave differently, but you
don't provide any solutions. I thought you wanted to change the
behavior, so I described one simple solution and the issues with it.
Do you have another way to solve this?

> From my point of view, it's a defect/bug, but I wan't argue.

Yes, but matz is the boss here. From his point of view, this is
expected behavior.

> If you think that's an "limitation" (instead of a bug), then there *is* an issue (and thus you should not "reject" this issue).

The fact that something is a limitation doesn't mean that it's an
issue. Ruby can't spawn magical unicorn (a limitation), but it's not
an issue. "Rejected" in the issue tracker means "We won't try to fix
it". They won't try to change this limitation, therefore they reject
it.

> I any way, rejecting the issue does not change that there *is* an issue with the literal-instantiation.

Issues like these are subjective. *You* have an issue with the
literal-instantiation, while matz does not (see ruby-talk).